Monday, December 30, 2013

M. Lynne Corn and Pervaze
A. Sheikh
Specialists in Natural Resources PolicyInternational species conservation is addressed by several funds, including
those under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) and the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF). This report provides
a brief overview of MSCF and NMBCF and their funding and legislative
status.

Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources PolicyIn the United States, desalination and membrane technologies are used to
augment municipal water supply, produce high-quality industrial water
supplies, and reclaim contaminated supplies (including from oil and gas
development). As of 2005, approximately 2,000 desalination facilities larger
than 0.3 million gallons per day (MGD) were operating in the United States,
with a total capacity of 1,600 MGD, which represents more than 2.4% of
total U.S. municipal and industrial freshwater use. At issue for Congress
is what the federal role should be in supporting desalination and membrane
technology research and facilities. Desalination issues before the 113th Congress include how
to focus federal research, at what level to support desalination research and
projects, and how to provide a regulatory context that protects the environment
and public health without disadvantaging the technology. H.R. 745 and S. 1245
would authorize the extension of the Water Desalination Act, which
authorizes appropriations for the main desalination research and demonstration
outreach program of the Department of the Interior, through 2018; a title in S.
601 would allow desalination projects to be eligible for loans and loan
guarantees as part of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act,
WIFIA.

Desalination processes generally treat seawater or brackish water to produce a
stream of freshwater, and a separate, saltier stream of water that
requires disposal (often called waste concentrate). Many states (e.g.,
Florida, California, and Texas) and cities have investigated the feasibility
of large-scale municipal desalination. Coastal communities look to seawater or estuarine
water, while interior communities look to brackish aquifers. The most common desalination
technology in the United States is reverse osmosis, which uses permeable membranes
to separate freshwater from saline waters. Membrane technologies are also
effective for other water treatment applications. Many communities and
industries use membranes to remove contaminants from drinking water, treat
contaminated water for disposal, and reuse industrial wastewater. For some
applications, there are few competitive technological substitutes.

Wider adoption of desalination is constrained by financial, environmental, and
regulatory issues. Although desalination costs have dropped steadily in
recent decades, significant further decline may not happen with existing
technologies. Electricity expenses represent one-third to one-half of the
operating cost of many desalination technologies. The energy intensity of some
technologies raises concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and the
usefulness of these technologies for climate change adaptation. Concerns
also remain about the technologies’ environmental impacts, such as saline
waste concentrate management and disposal and the effect of surface water
intake facilities on aquatic organisms. Construction of desalination
facilities, like many other types of projects, often requires a
significant number of local, state, and federal approvals and permits.

Emerging technologies (e.g., forward osmosis, nanocomposite and chlorine
resistant membranes) show promise for reducing desalination costs.
Research to support emerging technologies and to reduce desalination’s
environmental and social impacts is particularly relevant to the debate on the
future level and nature of federal desalination assistance. The federal
government generally has been involved primarily in desalination research
and development (including for military applications), some demonstration
projects, and select full-scale facilities. For the most part, local governments,
sometimes with state-level involvement, are responsible for planning, testing, building,
and operating desalination facilities. Some states, universities, and private
entities also undertake and support desalination research. While interest in
desalination persists among some Members, especially in response to
drought concerns, efforts to maintain or expand federal activities and
investment are challenged by the domestic fiscal climate and differing views on federal
roles and priorities.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources PolicyThe Columbia River Treaty (CRT) is an international agreement between the
United States and Canada for the cooperative development and operation of
the water resources of the Columbia River Basin to provide for flood control
and power. The Treaty was precipitated by several flooding events in the
basin, and was the result of more than 20 years of negotiations between the two
countries. It was ratified in 1961, and implementation began in 1964.

The Treaty provided for the construction and operation of 15.5 million
acre-feet of additional storage, including three dams in Canada and one
dam in the United States (whose reservoir extends into Canada). Together,
these dams more than doubled the amount of reservoir storage available in
the basin and provided significant flood protection benefits throughout the
basin. The CRT also requires that the United States and Canada prepare
“Assured Operating Plans,” to allow for more predictable operations for
flood control and power objectives in the United States, among other
things. In exchange for these benefits, the United States agreed to provide
Canada with lump sum cash payments and a portion of downstream hydropower
benefits that are attributable to Canadian operations under the CRT (known
as the “Canadian Entitlement”). The Canadian Entitlement has been
estimated by some to be worth as much as $335 million annually.

The CRT has no specific end date, and most of its provisions would continue
indefinitely without action by the United States or Canada. However,
beginning in September 2024, either nation can terminate most provisions
of the Treaty with at least 10 years written notice (i.e., starting as early as
2014). Thus, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), in their designated role as the “U.S. Entity,” have undertaken a review
of the Treaty. Based on studies and stakeholder input, a recommendation by
the U.S. Entity has been published in draft form, and a final
recommendation on how to proceed (i.e., continue, terminate, modify) is
expected to be provided to the Department of State by December 2013. If the
Treaty is not terminated or modified, most of its provisions would
continue. The only provision currently scheduled to change in 2024
involves flood control by Canadian CRT projects. These operations are
scheduled to transition to “called-upon” operations in 2024. This means that
the United States would request and compensate Canada for flood control
operations as necessary.

Perspectives on the CRT and its review vary. Some U.S. interests believe that
the Treaty should continue but be altered to include, for example,
guarantees related to tribal resources and fisheries flows that were not
included in the original Treaty. Others think that the Canadian Entitlement should
be adjusted to more equitably share actual hydropower benefits, and some
disagree that fisheries flows should be accounted for in the Treaty. For
its part, Canada has disputed several U.S. assumptions and recommendations
during the review process, including those related to Canada’s expected
responsibilities for called-upon flood control and the status of the Canadian Entitlement.
Canada has noted that without the Canadian Entitlement, it sees no reason for
the Treaty to continue.

The draft recommendation by the U.S. Entity is to continue the Treaty with
certain modifications; it is expected to be finalized in December 2013.
The executive branch, through the State Department, will make the final
determination on whether changes to the Treaty are in the national
interest and will conduct any negotiations with Canada related to the future of
the CRT. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a
two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. If the
executive branch comes to an agreement regarding modification of the CRT,
the Senate may be asked to weigh in. In addition, both houses may choose to
weigh in on Treaty review activities.

Date of Report: December 5, 2013
Number of Pages: 18Order Number: R43287
Price: $29.95
To Order:
CLICK: R43287 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART